Mr N Macleod v UK Research and Innovation — 2026

The claimant applied for reconsideration of an oral judgment on preliminary issues in claim number 4104266/2025, heard at the same time as a separate claim against BAM Nuttall Limited. The reconsideration decision concerned the claim against UK Research and Innovation and the claimant's argument that UKRI was potentially liable for breaches of the Equality Act 2010 under section 41, the contract worker provision.

Employment Judge Whitcombe refused the reconsideration application under rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, finding no reasonable prospect that the original preliminary-issues judgment would be varied or revoked. The judge declined to admit additional documents by way of reconsideration, applying by analogy the principles in Ladd v Marshall and finding that, with reasonable diligence, the documents could have been obtained for the preliminary hearing.

The judge found that the additional documents would not have changed the conclusion in any event. The judgment records that issues such as safeguarding, welfare involvement or duties of care were not relevant to the section 41 test, and that the claimant's work was made available to him, subject only to limited and specific exceptions, by BAM Nuttall Limited rather than UKRI. The judge also recorded that the claimant was not supplied to UKRI under a contract between BAM Nuttall Limited and UKRI.

The claimant's argument that the tribunal had omitted to consider Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010 was rejected. The judge found that the claimant had not relied on section 29 or any other Part 3 provision at the preliminary hearing, and that such an approach would in any event have been misconceived because the Employment Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 120 concerns alleged breaches of Part 5 or related contraventions of sections 108, 111 or 112. The claimant's argument about functional control was also rejected as an attempt to reargue the section 41(5) conclusion. No remedy was awarded in this reconsideration judgment.